Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sfo Radp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms SFO long‑range plan EIR over Palo Alto appeal on noise analysis
Summary
The Board of Supervisors affirmed the Planning Commission's certification of the SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan EIR after Palo Alto appealed, arguing the EIR lacked a 2045 noise baseline. Planning and SFO representatives said the programmatic EIR used an appropriate future baseline and concluded the plan would not induce additional flights; the board affirmed the EIR.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Feb. 3 voted to affirm the Planning Commission’s certification of the final environmental impact report (EIR) for San Francisco International Airport’s Recommended Airport Development Plan (RADP) after the City of Palo Alto filed a CEQA appeal raising concerns about noise and air quality analysis.
Palo Alto’s counsel, Rick Jarvis, argued the EIR fails to present a required 2045 baseline for noise and therefore does not permit a lawful comparison of future project impacts. “There’s a fundamental legal flaw in the EIR,” Jarvis told supervisors, saying the document lacks projected noise levels for 2045 that would serve as the baseline for incremental impact analysis.
Planning Department senior planner Kei Zushi and airport environmental staff responded that the RADP is a 20‑year, programmatic plan and that the EIR appropriately used future (2045) baselines for certain operational impact areas. They said technical appendices and a consultant memo (appendix C) support the department’s conclusion that implementing the RADP would not induce additional aircraft operations because runway capacity, not terminal gates, constrains annual operations.
SFO environmental manager Audrey Park and aviation consultant Steve Culberson explained that the RADP’s projects are sized to match existing runway capacity and are intended to improve passenger experience by adding contact gates and landside facilities rather than increasing runway throughput. “Contact gates do not increase airport capacity,” Park said; Culberson added the constrained forecast used in the EIR accounts for runway capacity limits and fleet trends.
After questions and debate, the board voted to affirm the planning commission’s certification (item 38 approved) and tabled motions to reverse the certification. The clerk recorded 10 ayes on the motion to affirm.
What happens next: The board’s action upholds the programmatic EIR at the local level; Palo Alto has framed concerns about noise modeling and regional outreach, and the city and airport said they will continue engagement with affected communities.
